| 1 |
On Sat, 2020-02-22 at 22:35 -0800, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:39 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 22:11 +0000, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > This 'revision' group alread exists. Its called the Gentoo council. |
| 6 |
> > > Unless, that is, council have no oversight of comrel? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > No, that's not how things work. You don't have an appeal body |
| 9 |
> > proactively look into what all projects are doing. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I think by definition this is reactive. Comrel publishes a report[0], and |
| 13 |
> the Council[1] reviews it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I thought we've already established that the reports are meaningless. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The way I see it, your system basically means that, repeatedly: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1. ComRel does their job. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
2. ComRel wastes their time publishing a meaningless report. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
3. Since the report is meaningless, Council has to audit ComRel's work. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Since digging for past data is usually more effort than processing it |
| 26 |
as it flows, Council may as well start proactively auditing everything. |
| 27 |
Except that's not its purpose, and I don't see why we should throw |
| 28 |
random extra tasks on their plate just because. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
In my opinion, if we are to go for auditing ComRel, we should select |
| 31 |
a separate group of people for that, people that choose to put their |
| 32 |
effort into auditing rather than incidentally get dragged into it. |
| 33 |
Furthermore, I believe this group should not have any direct deciding |
| 34 |
power. Instead, they should bring any issues their find to ComRel's |
| 35 |
attention and/or appeal them to the Council. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Best regards, |
| 39 |
Michał Górny |
Archives